Honble GUPTA, J.–This criminal revision is directed against the appellate judgment dt. 31.7.90 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagur, whereby he upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentence of six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default one month R.I. (2). The short facts leading to this revision are that on 14.5.83 Shri Hari Krishan Sharma, Food Inspector purchased sample of `Sev Namkin from the shop M/s. Banshilal Hariram Agarwal, Sadar Bazar, Nagaur where the petitioner was sitting, for Rs. 15/-. After dividing the `Sev Namkin in three parts, he sealed the same in three phials. One sealed sample was sent to the Public Analyst who, vide report Ex.P-5, opined that the sample was adulterated ``Sarson-ka-tel from which Sev Namkeen was prepared, did not conform to the prescribed standard. After obtaining the sanction for prosecution, a complaint was filed by the Food Inspector against the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution examined P.W.1 Hari Krishan Sharma, P.W.2 Prem Chand and P.W.3 Chha- ganlal. Shri Y.C. Harit, Public Analyst was examined as Court Witness. Accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied accusation. He stated that if the oil is boiled some difference appears in its properties. He examined one witness Gumana Ram in defence. The learned Magistrate after hearing the counsel for the parties held the charge proved, and convicted the petitioner. The appeal of the pe- titioner preferred against his conviction proved abortive. (3). Mr. Shishodia, learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner, pointing out that there is no standard prescribed for the `Sev Namkin in the Appendix-B u/R. 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, contended that conviction of the peti- tioner is not sustainable. In support of this contention, he relied on the cases of Shri Kishan vs. State of Raj. (1), Prakash Chand vs. State of M.P. (2), Subhash Chander vs. State of Haryana (3) and State of Punjab vs. Gulshan Rai (4). His further conten- tion was that it is not proved on record that the petitioner had represented before the Food Inspector that the ``Sev Namkin was prepared in the mustard oil, and therefore, the ``Sev Namkin was not to be tested keeping in view the standard of mustard oil. His further conten- tion was that it is not proved on record that the petitioner had represented before the Food Inspector that the ``Sev Namkin was prepared in the mustard oil, and therefore, the ``Sev Namkin was not to be tested keeping in view the standard of mustard oil. He pointed out that it is not borne out that enough quantity of mustard oil required for test could be extracted from the ``Sev Namkin by the Public Analyst. Next submission of Mr. Shishodia was that the sanction Ex.P-6 is on the printed form and obviously it was not filled in by the Sanctioning Authority, and hence it should be presumed that the sanctioning authority had not applied its mind. (4). Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, tried to support the judgment of the trial court. (5). I have considered the above arguments. Sub-clause (m) of clause (ia) of Sec. 2 of the P.F. Act reads as follows :- ``adulterated - an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated- ``(m) if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its contituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability but which does not render it injurious to health: Provided that, where the quality or purity of the article, being primary food, has fallen below the prescribed standards or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability, in either case, solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency, then, such article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this sub-clause. Explanation-Where two or more articles of primary food are mixed together and the resultant article of food- (a) is stored, sold or distributed under a name which denotes the ingredients thereof; and (b) is not injurious to health, then, such resultant article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this clause; It is obvious that under sub-clause (m) of the P.F. Act 1954, an article of food is deemed to be adulterated if the quality or purity of that article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability. Standard of quality of articles of food is specified in Appendix `B to the P.F. Rules 1955. (6). Standard of quality of articles of food is specified in Appendix `B to the P.F. Rules 1955. (6). Admittedly, there is no standard prescribed for the ``Sev Namkin in Appendix `B. Therefore, it has to be accepted that the article ``Sev Namkin cannot be held to be adulterated in sub-clause (m) of clause 2(ia) of Sec. 2 of the Act. It has been the consistent view of the various High Courts that if there is no prescribed standard for an item of food, it cannot be deemed to be adulterated under sub-cl- ause (m) and the accused cannot be convicted. (7). This Court in the case of Shri Kishan (supra) held that as there is no standard prescribed for `Ladoo Motichur the accused could not be charged under the provisions of the Act of 1954 and the Rules made thereunder. (8). So also the M.P. High Court in the case of Prakash Chand (supra) held that as there is not standard prescribed for `Gur Gappa, the conviction of the accused was not sustainable. In that case, as in the instant case, the accused was prosecuted on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst on the edible oil extracted from the seized `Gur Gappa. The learned Judge held that since there is no standard prescribed for the extracted edible oil from any food stuff, the accused could not be convicted. The case of Prakash Chand (supra) is on all fours to the instant case. (9). The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Subhash Chander (supra) held that as there is no standard prescribed for `Namkeen Bhujia the accused could not be convicted. In that case, the Public Analyst gave the report presuming that mustard oil was used in the preparation of `Namkeen Bhujia. The learned Judge held that the oil extracted from the `Namkeen Bhujia could not be tested. (10). A Division Bench of the same High Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Gulshan Rai (supra) held that as no standard is prescribed under the Act or the Rules for the `Ladoos and as the Food Inspector did not purchase any sample of medium used for the preparation of `Ladoos, the accused could not be convicted. (11). A Division Bench of the same High Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Gulshan Rai (supra) held that as no standard is prescribed under the Act or the Rules for the `Ladoos and as the Food Inspector did not purchase any sample of medium used for the preparation of `Ladoos, the accused could not be convicted. (11). In the instant case, the Food Inspector had not taken sample from the oil utilised by the petitioner. There was also no occasion for the food Inspector to presume that the medium used for the preparation of `Sev Namkin was mustard oil. Of course, in the memo Ex.P-3 it is recorded that the sample was taken from `Sev Namkin prepared in mustard oil, but it is not at all established that the petitioner had represented that he had utilised mustard oil as the medium to prepare the `Sev Namkin. Neither in the notice given by the Food Inspector in Form No. VI to the petitioner nor in the receipt passed by the petitioner Ex.P-2 it was sta- ted that the `Sev Namkin was prepared in mustard oil. Even Hari Krishan, Food Inspector in his statement does not say that the accused petitioner had told him that he had prepared the `Sev Namkin in mustard oil. That being so, there was no occasion for the Food Inspector to write the words `Tel Sarson Ki Bani in Ex.P-3. A perusal of the memo clearly shows that the words ``Tel Sarson Ki Bani have been added afterwards. As such, there could not be any occasion for the Food Inspector to have informed the Public Analyst to examine the sample keeping in view that it was prepared in the mustard oil. Apart from that, in the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. it has not been asked that he had sold the ``Sev Namkin prepared in the mustard oil. That being so, on the basis of the test of extracted oil, the `Sev Namkin cannot be held to be adulterated under sub-cl. (m) of cl. (ia). (12). Besides that, there is no standard prescribed in the Rules or the Appendix `B for the oil extracted from a food item. Therefore, even on assuming that the ex- tracted oil did not tally with the standard prescribed for the mustard oil, the accused cannot be convicted. (m) of cl. (ia). (12). Besides that, there is no standard prescribed in the Rules or the Appendix `B for the oil extracted from a food item. Therefore, even on assuming that the ex- tracted oil did not tally with the standard prescribed for the mustard oil, the accused cannot be convicted. It is also to be noticed that there is not vast difference in the saponification value of the extracted oil. It was 192.4 as against the standard of mustard oil given at item no. A.17.06 in the Appendix which could be upto 177. There is no opinion of expert on record that there would not be any change in the saponification value of the oil extracted from a food item. Therefore, on the basis of the difference in the saponification value, the `Sev Namkin can not be held to be adulterated under sub-clause (m) of clause (ia). (13). One ground on which the sample has been opined to be adulterated by the Public Analyst is that Baudouin test of extracted oil was positive. Shri Y.C. Harit admits that this test is not given in Appendix at Item No. A 17.06. According to him, this test is provided in Rule 44(e) of the Rules. The relevant portion of the Rule 44 of Rules of 1955 is reproduced hereunder:- ``44. Sale of certain admixtures prohibited- Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 43 no person shall either by himself or by any servant or agent sell- (a) x x x x (b) x x x x x (c) x x x x x x (d) x x x x x (e) a mixture of two or more edible oils as an edible oil. (14). A reading of the provision makes it clear that the Rule prohibits sale of mixture of two or more edible oils as an edible. In other words, the Rule is violated if a person sells some edible oil, which is a mixture of two or more edible oils. In the instant case, it is not alleged that the Food Inspector had purchased extracted oil from the petitioner for analysis. The sale of food item prepared in the edible oil cannot come under clause (e) of Section 44. That being so, on the basis of the report Ex.P-5 the sample of `Sev Namkin could not be held to be adulterated. (15). The sale of food item prepared in the edible oil cannot come under clause (e) of Section 44. That being so, on the basis of the report Ex.P-5 the sample of `Sev Namkin could not be held to be adulterated. (15). From the foregoing discussion, it may not be understood that if standard has not been prescribed in Appendix-B in respect of some food items, accused cannot be convicted under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The definition of `adulterated given in clause (ia) of Section 2 is exhaustive. Not only that an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated because the same does not conform to the prescribed standard specified in Appendix `B, it shall also be deemed to be adulterated if it comes in any of the sub-clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) and (1). In the instant case, it is not the case for the prosecution that the `Sev Namkin was adulterated under those sub-clauses. As such, the conviction of the petitioner cannot be upheld. (16). In view of the foregoing conclusion, it is not necessary to consider the other contention raised by Mr. Shishodia. The petitioner is entitled to acquittal. (17). Consequently, the revision petition succeeds. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted of the offence u/s. 16 r/w Sec. 7 of the P.F. Act. Fine if realised, shall be refunded to the petitioner.